Gun control a comparison US vs Russia

[Bronco70]

...every death through a gun is unnecessary IMO.

Yes and no...

If I am in a situation where I am attacked, and it comes down to my life or his, it will be his, and will be necessary from my perspective at that moment.

You could argue that the attack was probably unnecessary, and therefore the resulting death, but I wouldn't have control over that particular part of the equation.

Just imagine - and that's only a thought experiment now - you'd have a law tonight which says that you have from right now on a certain amount of time to return all your registered weapons. They get refunded by tax deduction or whatever and you can turn in your ammo as well(But that's voluntary since there's no registration on the amount of ammo you buy and use).
If you fail to do it afterwards state employees would pursue the missing guns and hand out penalties on them that are hefty and it's added to your criminal record.
Think how that would affect the spread of guns long term. Of course there will be people who'll try to make a business out of this situation.
Afterwards you can install a new gunlaw how to get a gun license for sports on a gun range or hunting.
But you have no longer the right to carry them to your home but instead they're stored at the shooting range or wherever at a protected place.

This would never work, and here's why: I don't know what the ratio of registered to unregistered firearms is, but most states don't have registration requirements for handguns, shotguns, or regular rifles. I'm guessing, but I would assume the number of guns in circulation that have a clear paper trail is low. In most places, private sales are legal, and require no documentation, so it is difficult to verify ownership. The assumption that all gun owners would comply with an outright gun ban is naive, at best. It is more likely, IMO, that you would see the formation of the militias that the second amendment cites, and extensive civil conflict. But let's say all registered guns are turned in. What then? This has been explained, ad nauseam, but by eliminating only the firearms that are least likely to be used in an illegal manner, the only thing you accomplish is taking away a measure of protection from those who obey the laws. The only way this works is if all guns are recovered, and that would be a nearly impossible task.

 

[franklin]

I find your point is mostly valid. While I don't think that a handgun would be accessible enough when you get get attacked from close range for whatever reason, I totally do agree with Germany being lax on abuse and rape. I'd go publicly as far to state that those kind of people belong death sentenced. I'm no unbiased person in this, but I haven't come to a better solution to handle these kind of degenerates.

That's not what I meant.

I think we get way too caught up in emotional fights over incidents to convey the deep down intent behind gun freedom. The bottom line is we place higher value on giving protection to our weak and vulnerable than we do potentially-in-a-vacuum higher overall death tolls. Europe, on the other hand, trusts society to minimize overall death tolls while accepting potentially-in-a-vacuum higher rapes and murders. We accept potentially higher murder rates by guns, they accept vulnerable women who are home alone having no defenses against rapists.

 

[Stoked]

It would be a task that leads to civil war.

 

[bordelais7]

Wait...just get rid of guns and ask everyone nicely to turn them all in? How come no one has thought of that. Great idea.

 

[8]

I'm more concerned about this from the standpoint that it gives the government way too much control. This would severely diminish any chances of a necessary revolution in the future.

 

[BTP]

Yes and no...

If I am in a situation where I am attacked, and it comes down to my life or his, it will be his, and will be necessary from my perspective at that moment.

You could argue that the attack was probably unnecessary, and therefore the resulting death, but I wouldn't have control over that particular part of the equation.



This would never work, and here's why: I don't know what the ratio of registered to unregistered firearms is, but most states don't have registration requirements for handguns, shotguns, or regular rifles. I'm guessing, but I would assume the number of guns in circulation that have a clear paper trail is low. In most places, private sales are legal, and require no documentation, so it is difficult to verify ownership. The assumption that all gun owners would comply with an outright gun ban is naive, at best. It is more likely, IMO, that you would see the formation of the militias that the second amendment cites, and extensive civil conflict. But let's say all registered guns are turned in. What then? This has been explained, ad nauseam, but by eliminating only the firearms that are least likely to be used in an illegal manner, the only thing you accomplish is taking away a measure of protection from those who obey the laws. The only way this works is if all guns are recovered, and that would be a nearly impossible task.

Regarding the first I should have said: Murder, homicide or whatever, not limiting it to guns My wish is that it should NEVER come down to a situation where it's either him or you...

I didn't know that there was no requirement to register weapons and that free trading was allowed. I find that shockingly unresponsible.
Maybe that should be the first step. Buying new weapons should be only possible with registration and proper instruction/training. Add to that psychological clearance.
All weapons are not allowed to be privately sold. It simply is required to state it so it becomes illegal if caught trading an illegal weapon.
Illegal weapons are to be registered retrospectively. If not done and you get caught you get fined.
When carrying weapons outside your home you have to carry legal documents at all times with yourself.

Maybe that would be a good first step for diligent weapon usage/possession, so there's the possibility in 20 or 30 years from now to control the vast majority of functioning weapons while slowly lowering criminal acts involving guns.

 

[BTP]

Wait...just get rid of guns and ask everyone nicely to turn them all in? How come no one has thought of that. Great idea.

Make fun of me all you want.
But the problem is home made...You have 2 parties and none has the balls and unity to address this topic consistently.
I just want to remind it's not me who created this topic, I simply take part at the discussion. And if I make a statement that's self evident I connect it with another statement that shows another angle and maybe my opinion.

 

[franklin]

Maybe that would be a good first step for diligent weapon usage/possession, so there's the possibility in 20 or 30 years from now to control the vast majority of functioning weapons while slowly lowering criminal acts involving guns.

Not interested, but thanks for caring about the populace outside your country so much. It's always appreciated when outsiders ***-you-me a problem and then prescribe solutions to this pretend problem. You'd make a great US politician.

 

[LogGrad98]

Here is a more realistic scenario.

First, develop time travel. We will need a physicist to help us get past the annoying physics hurdles, like speed of light and wormholes and alternate universes and all that crap. Colton get on that.

Check.

Next, we travel back in time to the 1st century AD China and start systematically killing anyone working with saltpeter. Since it is through experimentation, largely for medicinal purposes, that Chinese alchemists figured out the properties of saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and eventually, around the 8th century AD, discovered the mixture for gunpowder. Make it a crime punishable by death to experiment with saltpeter.

Next travel to every major era of breakthrough for gunpowder-related inventions and kill the inventors. This will have to start in China, then Japan, the middle-east, then europe, finally coming to America and taking out guys like Colt and Browning.

There, now guns no longer exist and they can thoroughly be "controlled", and, since everyone knows that before guns there were never any conflicts in which people were killed, we will have about 18 billion people on the planet in modern times since we have lived in peace and prosperity without the unmitigated evil of guns.





Or we could just go back in time and kill all republicans, since they are the root of all evil anyway. Either way the effect is the same: no guns and a perfect society.

 

[Bronco70]

I didn't know that there was no requirement to register weapons and that free trading was allowed. I find that shockingly unresponsible.

Laws vary from state to state (and even city to city) but most do not require registration. As far as it being irresponsible... if the guns themselves were the problem, with 300M guns floating around, we'd see MUCH MUCH MORE gun death than we do.

Maybe that should be the first step. Buying new weapons should be only possible with registration and proper instruction/training. Add to that psychological clearance.

This is partly already in force - buying from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (retail sale) requires a background check (this also creates a paper trail). Criminals generally do not buy their weapons through a FFL.

All weapons are not allowed to be privately sold. It simply is required to state it so it becomes illegal if caught trading an illegal weapon.

Selling and buying crack is illegal, yet that happens thousands of times daily. Laws do not stop the unlawful.

Illegal weapons are to be registered retrospectively. If not done and you get caught you get fined.

Again, proving ownership on the vast majority of the 300M guns in the US would be an insurmountable task. Plus, in addition to the amendment that would be violated by taking away gun rights, others would be violated by any search or seizure that resulted from an attempt to enforce it.

When carrying weapons outside your home you have to carry legal documents at all times with yourself.

This also is in place, after a fashion. Again, laws vary from place to place, but most areas that allow weapons to be carried require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The fact of the matter is, most of these measures would have zero effect on guns used for illicit activity. They would make the gun control crowd feel all warm and fuzzy, but they would have no substantive effect on gun violence. Mainly, they would just be further inconvenience to the millions of law abiding gun owners, making it more difficult to protect themselves.

 

[♪alt13]

Right now there's for example 1 murder per 100k people a year over here. In the USA it's 5 times as high. Other countries in Europe have an even lower ratio than Germany(Greece for example officially).
Luxembourg for example was a horrible example of yours. That's not a sufficient big enough country to be statistically relevant

I don't think you fully appreciate the scale of the USA. A national statistic for the US is almost meaningless. The murder rate for the state of utah in 2010(utah highest year) was 1.7 while for the city of chicago it was 15.2 per 100k. There are pockets of extreme violence that really skew those numbers. Comparing Germany and the us makes just as little sense as comparing the us and russia. (That was the whole point of this thread fwiw). One of the reasons that Germany is less violent than the us is because the average age of the population is older.

If we look at violent crime rates through the lens of demographics the correlation is obvious and inarguable. I suspect(because you are obviously quite intelligent) that you aware of this and choose to ignore it. I would say that you are the one that is being polemical.

 

[BTP]

I don't think you fully appreciate the scale of the USA. A national statistic for the US is almost meaningless. The murder rate for the state of utah in 2010(utah highest year) was 1.7 while for the city of chicago it was 15.2 per 100k. There are pockets of extreme violence that really skew those numbers. Comparing Germany and the us makes just as little sense as comparing the us and russia. (That was the whole point of this thread fwiw). One of the reasons that Germany is less violent than the us is because the average age of the population is older.

If we look at violent crime rates through the lens of demographics the correlation is obvious and inarguable. I suspect(because you are obviously quite intelligent) that you aware of this and choose to ignore it. I would say that you are the one that is being polemical.

Honestly I didn't consider the demographics. It's an interesting point. I don't think I was polemical in any way since I tried to stick to facts and arguments, not the way the message is brought over.
And I think really making a comparison with Luxembourg is not really a way to make a valid comparison because that's just a similar extreme like Chicago or Detroit.